• SiteMeter

JustiaGate

 Dianna Cotter, PortlandCivil Rights Examiner

October 18, 2011

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history – Minor v. Happersett (1875) – to directly construe Article 2 Section 1’s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent.  In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in theUS to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain. 

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

NOTE: Although the author is correct that in June 2008, Minor was not being discussed. I did in fact publish the Barack Obama Un-Constitutional in Sept 2008, the exact date Sept 26th, 2008 which does list Minor as a reference.  Again, this blog is vindicated!

Meanwhile, at the “Supreme Court Center” of the influential legal research website Justia.com, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words “Minor V. Happersett” along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations.  And In two documented cases actual text was removed.

Clearly this was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic Nomination at the DNC Convention inDenver,Colorado in August ’08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive.

So far, 25 corrupted SCOTUS have been identified, and this number may continue to rise as the scope of the tampering becomes apparent. These cases all relied upon Minor, some specifically referencing its definition of Natural Born Citizen – a definition which makes Obama ineligible to be President as that definition is part of the holding and continuing precedent, issued from the highest court in our nation making it the law of the land, even now.   

The most extreme sabotage so far discovered appears to have been done to the landmark decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was sabotaged to remove “Minor v. Happersett” three times, along with one reference to “Scott v Sandford”, another to the Slaughterhouse Cases  and some accompanying text relevant to the issue. These surgical alterations would alter and shape the national dialogue; leaving a persistent and  incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause. There is no doubt whatsoever that this was the specific intent of those responsible for this illegal editing of American history and law.

As previously mentioned, the specific distinction between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen made in Minor v. Happersett is in the holding of the case, the section which creates the Law, and it is this Law which has been repeatedly cited over the decades since. In order to minimize the importance of Minor, someone at Justia deliberately decided to make these supporting citations as difficult as possible to find.

This has had the desired effect, diluting the importance of Minor v. Happersett in the national dialogue across the blogosphere’s political spectrum ever since. The end result: the one case which defines Natural Born Citizen was reduced to seeming irrelevance, and thus the conversation never got past doorkeepers already in Obama’s camp in the mainstream media.

Of course, a lawyer going into Court would never rely upon anything but an official source for Supreme Court law, but 99.9% of the population have no access to dusty law texts, or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw. Those who committed these crimes were well aware of this, and used it to their advantage.

The manipulation at Justia.com diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns Justia.com’s version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia’s version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere’s forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical Law Library.

This is nothing short of appalling. Justia swapped their tampered versions of the cases for the actual Supreme Court opinions and then pawned them off as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text” of the Supreme Court’s opinions. Yet Justia CEO Tim Stanley claims that making case law available to the public for free is the mission of Justia. In reality, Justia has been re-inventing our legal history and passing it off as genuine.

Attorney Donofrio’s Full report “Justia.com Surgically Removed “Minor v Happersett” from 25 Supreme Court Opinions in run up to ’08 Election”,  published today explains that exposure to criminal punishment is a direct result of not just the tampering, but more specifically, as a result of placing text on every tampered page which states, “Full text of case”:

Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”.  This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism.  It’s propaganda.  And there is no place for it in the United States.  The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers. – Leo Donofrio Esq.

Clearly, the corruption of Supreme Court Cases was systemic and surgically targeted within Justia.com, one of the largest and best known legal research sites on the internet. Justia is nothing if not efficient in driving traffic to its site; this is after all their business. Today they partner with Google and have Google Analytics within their site which does two things; it increases Justia’s visibility on Google searches, and it pushes their website to the top of those searches done on legal issues. When specific search terms are erased out of a document, naturally that document will not appear on a search. Anyone searching for the case name “Minor v. Happersett” and “citizenship” would never see the dozens of cases manipulated by Justia.com.

Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of ‘freedom of information’.  On June 19th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following statements:

“Our goal is to provide academic researchers, government officials, attorneys, and the public with advanced features, including full‐text search, annotations by legal professionals, and comparison tools to visualize the differences in the law between the individual states…”

And

“In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation’s laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system.”

To describe these comments, made at roughly the same time Supreme Court Cases were being scrubbed and deliberately altered at his site as ironic, is an understatement of gross proportions.

Only a person thoroughly educated in the law would know precisely which cases to look for in order to direct the changes to be made to those cases. Furthermore, only someone with access to Justia.com’s database could physically make these changes from inside the website. This artificially created a near empty result set and the cases which did turn up led those inexperienced in the law, nowhere.

This appears to violate every principle Tim Stanley and Justia.com have built their business upon.

The manipulations at Justia.com were initially discovered by Attorney Leo Donofrio on July 1, 2011, when he published his initial report, “Justia.com Caught Red Handed Hiding References to Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Decisions,”. Upon publication of his original discovery documenting the sabotage of Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, two Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor v. Happersett as precedent on citizenship, two things happened almost immediately: First, the altered pages were returned to their original versions at Justia within an hour or so of Donofrio’s publication. Second, despite Justia CEO Tim Stanley’s cries for freedom of legal information (and law suits compelling the same), robots have now been placed on the Justia URL’s for the Boyd and Pope cases at InternetArchive.org, also known as the Waybackmachine.  These robots make it impossible to see the tampering as it unfolded in mid-2008… with those cases. 

So much for freedom of information. 

One can, however, still see the tampering from screenshots taken by Donofrio and are attached to that original report on July 1, 2011 at his blog, Natural Born Citizen, which has been singularly focused on the issue of Presidential eligibility since late 2008.

As Donofrio documents in his article today, when he discovered a third tampered case, instead of rushing to publish it, he contacted a number of other bloggers and reporters to help document the evidence before Justia dispersed their robots to block it.  While Donofrio originally only discovered two cases of tampering, somebody at Justia knew where the bones were buried and went about reinstating “Minor v. Happersett” in the at least 25 cases which it had earlier sabotaged.  It appears that whoever knew about these additional despoiled cases, must have believed by fixing them before the corruption was exposed no one would ever suspect they too had been altered.

What tipped Donofrio off last week to the extent of Justia’s tampering was the case “Luria v. United States”. This case also firmly supports Minor on citizenship, and he double checked the text to see if it included references to Minor. It did… something he had not noticed upon previous readings of the case at Justia.com.

With his new insight into SCOTUS case tampering, he plugged the URL into the Waybackmachine to see if it had been altered in the past. Bingo. It had. Furthermore there was nothing blocking his ability to see those snapshotted pages, and how they had been altered compared to the original text. The gun wasn’t just smoking, the bullet was still flying.

A brief explanation of the how the Waybackmachine works. It takes snapshots of internet pages. It may not record the day a given webpage changed, but it documents the changes when it does hit that page. Thus a date on the Waybackmachine of April 13, 2004 means this was the date the snapshot was taken, not when the changes were necessarily made. There is no way of knowing precisely when the change occurred as the waybackmachine does not record the precise instant the change is made, it is only sometime later when the Internet archive records it.

The evidence he discovered there, at the time of publication of this article, is still available and shows the same exact same pattern of behavior – deception – that Justia exhibited with the Boyd and Pope cases Donofrio published back in July.

If Justia hasn’t blocked access to the WaybackMachine for their publication of Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) by the time you read this, then it continues to be evident and accessible that on Nov. 4, 2006 the Waybackmachine recorded  Justia published the true original opinion issued by the Supreme Court with no tampering evident. Minor v. Happersett is cited on page 22 directly referencing Presidential eligibility as follows:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225.”

The July 6, 2008 Waybackmachine snapshot of Luria v. US is the first snapshot that shows the tampering:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society.  These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.  Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.   88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827.”

Notice that “Minor v. Happersett” has been removed along with the reference to “Osborn v. United States”, another case which causes trouble for Obama (and McCain).  All of the WaybackMachine snapshots between July 6, 2008, and April 13, 2010 for this case, show the same tampering.  The current, live Justia page for Luria v. US has been un-scrubbed and shows the original Supreme Court text. It is only with an archival resource such as the Waybackmachine that the alterations can be seen.

At publication, insertion of the URL into the Waybackmachine for this page at Justia still reveals the changes made to this page over time. Repeat this entire process with 25 Supreme Court cases and the extent of the tampering becomes evident.

This is disturbing enough, yet there was another subtle and insidious layer of deception. In every single instance of tampering, the numerical citation attached to Minor V. Happersett, has also been altered.  (See Donofrio’s blog for a complete break down of this.)  Changing these numbers is yet another layer of deception practiced at Justia.

While Donofrio documents in detail what the finer points of law in both versions mean in his article, this Examiner.com publication documents what this reporter has personally witnessed – the tampering of Supreme Court Cases online in the guise of “Full Text of Case”. This article is not the legal opinion of an attorney; it is witness to an event.

It’s important to note that the only way Justia could block all access to previous versions of their publication of cases would require .txt robots to be placed on their entire domain records at the Waybackmachine.  If Tim Stanley were to secure Justia.com from the honest and forthright archiving of the WaybackMachine, he would be an instant pariah in the freedom of information scene of which he is a leader. 

Furthermore, ifStanleywere to place robots on only the 25 (or more) cases which cite Minor v. Happersett, it would be a de-facto admission of guilt. 

It appears that whoever tampered with these cases went back and “fixed” all of them, including 23 Donofrio wasn’t aware of until this week when he conclusively established the sabotage by Justia.  For all 25, the pattern is precisely the same. In 2006, the cases at Justia are pristine in the Waybackmachine; word for word from official Supreme Court cases. Then at various points in 2008, the cases are corrupted by removal of the case name “Minor v, Happersett” ( as well as some other case names and text.)

The cases remained corrupted, according to the snapshots of the Waybackmachine in most cases, until late 2010.

Today however, all 25 cases have been painstakingly returned to their official Supreme Court versions; all references to Minor are back, the case and page numbers have been restored, as well as all missing text and references to other cases.  Still, the pattern is clearly visible to anyone who takes the time to look at the evidence made available by the Waybackmachine.  The sophistication and surgical elegance used to sabotage these cases is astounding, and has been personally witnessed by this reporter.

Every case which has been found to date by Mr. Donofrio has been documented with great attention to all these details. This has been accomplished by downloading the full code of the original un-tainted pages and the corrupted revisions from the Waybackmachine’s date stamped archive, along with screenshots of the pages as they appeared in browsers such as Mozilla Firefox before and after the tampering occurred, and the restored pages.

The volume of data is significant and Mr. Donofrio is in the process of making the entire archive available to the public. The article he has published today contains what he refers to as a “document dump“. It is in reality evidence. The reader is strongly encouraged to view the images which document Justia’s actions. Upon doing so, every member of congress should be notified of the existence of this information. Such usurpation of American history and law cannot be allowed.

Screenshots and links have been sent to several specific media contacts which include the Washington Times, Accuracy In Media, and Free Republic. In the interest of putting this information in front of as many eyes as possible before publication, it has been made freely available since Friday October 18, 2011 in the form of screenshots and saved page code. Should the information presented here be altered on the internet following publication, there will be a significant number of media outlets with knowledge and proof of any further alterations to internet archives.

The penalty associated with violating the “False Writings Statute”, 18 U.S.C. 1018 is jail and a fine for each count. With at least 25 counts if not more, this could mean upwards of 25 years in prison. The manipulation of Supreme Court cases is an offense against all Americans, and the Court itself. If like Fast and Furious this scandal reaches directly to the White House, the ramifications are both dire and catastrophic.

Minor v. Happersett defined the one specific term which Barack Obama could not overcome with “Hope and Change” though he could ‘hope’ someone would ‘change’ the cases which help define the term “Natural Born Citizen,”.  This case, if it had been sufficiently known to the public and media, and sufficiently documented by supporting citations, might have eliminated the possibility of Obama’s nomination and/or election. Either Obama got lucky in this regard, or the “constitutional law professor” and former editor of the Harvard Law Review had some hand in directing the efforts to erase the very citations in law which define him as a citizen, and at the same time rule him out as a constitutional candidate for President of the United States.

Just as certainly as the corruption at Justia.com has been documented and archived, more will be revealed. Stay tuned, it is expected that this information will generate some significant updates. They will be reported here as they happen.

Continue reading on Examiner.com JustiaGate – Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate#ixzz1bR3mM19i

Read from Leo’s site http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/

 

Citizenship Jeopardy By Cindy Simpson at American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/citizenship_jeopardy.html

US Department of State confirms Vattel

The US Department of State posted the following and thereby confirms Burlamaqui and Vattel, both whom I and others here have stated defined the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as understood by the Framers, Founders, and signers of the United States Constitution.

“America’s Founders were inspired by the ideas and values of early Swiss philosophers like Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui and Emer de Vattel, and the 1848 Swiss Constitution was influenced by our own U.S. Constitution. Swiss commitment to democracy is an example for nations and people everywhere who yearn for greater freedoms and human rights.”

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/169371.htm

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama – foreign born, foreign spawn, foreign allegiance, foreign national.

 “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Vattel

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following. 

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Here are some of Burlamaqui’s statements about ‘members of society’

Burlamaqui refers to ‘law of nations, and that that even if Barack Obama was allowed to attain as Burlamaqui states the years of discretion, Barack Obama maintained citizenship, allegiance to the British Empire as a british subject and a Kenyan Citizen till 1983, into his adulthood.

As the 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and NOT SUBJECT to any foreign power, (excluding Indians not taxed,) are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

quote; “NOT SUBJECT to any foreign power”

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama has unequivocally stated that at birth he was a British subject, whose allegiance,  protection, and jurisdiction was to the British Crown and  WAS SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER.

Obama’s statement never acknowledges any United States citizenship, allegiance, or Jurisdiction, in any part thereof, nor any other country.

Baracka Abdallah Husein Obama acknowledges only one allegaince and that is to a foreign power.

 “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Michelle Obama stated ‘Barack Obama a Kenyan’

Michelle Obama  ‘When we visited Barack’s home country of Kenya’
A ‘citizen’ is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’, as proven by the distinction in the Constitutional eligibility requirements in the United States Constitution.

United States Constitution Art 1, sec 2

Representitive eligibility requirement.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have …been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, .

CITIZEN!

United States Constitution Art 1, sec 3

Senatorial eligibility requirement.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have…been nine Years a Citizen of the United States

CITIZEN!

United States Constitution Art 2, sec1

Presidential requirement.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

If they equated to the same definition and meaning the Founding Fathers, Framers, signers of the United States Constitution would have used the same wording.

Evolution of a Constitutional ‘Natural Born Citizen’

First off, one needs to ask the question ‘Why the grandfather clause’ in the Constitution? No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

British subjects born in the colonies were and have been regarded as ‘Natural Born Subjects’ in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 1] GEORGIA [1732] “It was further declared, that all persons born in the province should enjoy all the privileges and immunities of natural-born subjects in Great Britain.”

Even in the Mayflower Compact written in 1620, “In the name of God, Amen.  We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.”

The Treaty of Paris, 1783, was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay, names hardly unfamiliar with those here.  Acknowledged the Thirteen Colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof, that also released jurisdiction and the colonists allegiance to the crown.

It was only after that those born after the Treaty of Paris was signed, the condition of their father changed from jurisdiction and allegiance to the Crown, to the jurisdiction and allegiance to the newly formed  13 colonies, at birth. Jurisdiction and allegiace to the individual state.

Vattel’s Laws of Nations BK 1  §4. What are sovereign states.
Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State, Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws.

Vattel’s Laws of Nations BK 1  §10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

Per the Articles of Confederation, Artile 1, IV;

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

 Where the Continental Congress in 1781 described the privileges and immunities to which the citizens of one State are entitled in another. However, the Articles of Confederation which were weak and did not give a strong political or economic base for the newly formed nation that the United States Constitution was formed and eventually ratified.

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 21 October 1, 1783 – October 31, 1784
James Monroe to Thomas Jefferson

In his letter of May 21 Jefferson had asked: “Is there a commission for an additional treaty with France? The instructions made this necessary, and without it we shall be at Paris but private citizens unprotected by the laws of nations, and liable to the jurisdiction of the country.” On June 3 Congress ordered Charles Thomson to prepare commissions for Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson “to make supplementary treaties of commerce with France, the United Netherlands, and Sweden.” JCC, 27:530.

Vattel’s Laws of Nations BK 1 § 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Vattel’s Laws of Nations BK 1 § 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a  perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
Such were formerly the cities of Greece; such are at present the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands, and such the members of the Helvetic body.

Vattel’s “Law of Nations” 1758   Book One, Chapter 1 § 10. Of states forming a federal republic.        http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

 I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript “Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect.         I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.  -Ben Franklin (December 9, 1775), Letter 459: Benjamin Franklin to Charles William Frederic Dumas. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol02.html

The fundamental regulation that determines the manner in which the public authority is to be executed, is what forms the constitution of the state. In this is seen the form in which the nation acts in quality of a body politic, how and by whom the people are to be governed, — and what are the rights and duties of the governors. This constitution is in fact nothing more than the establishment of the order in which a nation proposes to labour in common for obtaining those advantages with a view to which the political society was established.

Vattel’s “Law of Nations” 1758   Book One, Chapter 3 § 27. What is the constitution of a state.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html   1787

The Virginia Declaration of Rights
June 12, 1776

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/independence/virdor.htm

The Northwest Ordinance July 13, 1787

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/ohio/norwes.htm

The Continental Convention had been authorized merely to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation but, as Madison later wrote, the delegates “with a manly confidence in their country” simply threw the Articles aside and went ahead with the consideration of a wholly new form of government.  That new form of government based on on the solid foundation of colonial experience, English practice, and French political philosophy. That political philosophy was based on ‘Laws of Nations’ by Vattel. As the keystone of the Constitution, the Convention adopted a brief but highly significant device:

“Congress shall have power . . . to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the . . . powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States. (Article I , Section viii.)

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Article Vi. )

“In all free states, the constitution is final,” wrote John Adams, second President of the United States.

More Vattel from the Founding Fathers

Vattel’s Law of Nations and the Founding Fathers

Vattel was the key in the United States Constitution in determining the Article 2 Natural Born Citizen clause. Here is a list of the references used by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington in regards to Vattel’s Law of Nations.  This should dispel any notion that the Founding Fathers did not use the Law of Nations as their guide.

 Vattel – John Adams

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=GEWN-search-1&mode=TOC

From Edmund Randolph, 6 May 1793

… refusal of him may bring war upon the U.S., because they cannot, without very particular reasons decline his admission—(See Vattel book. 4. section 65) That the expulsion of the prince is not one of those particular reasons will appear …

 Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on a Cabinet Meeting, 6 May 1793

… valid. E.R. declared himself of the same opinion, but on H’s undertaking to present to him the authority in Vattel (which we had not present) & to prove to him that, if the authority was admitted, the treaty might …

 Memorandum from Henry Knox, 16 May 1793

… against our sovereignty even to such a degree as to justify a declaration of War unless satisfactory reparation be made—Vattel is explicit upon this subject he says—in Book 3. Chapter 2d Section 15. “As the right of levying soldiers …

 From John Jay, 28 August 1790

… comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is …

 To the Cabinet, 3 August 1793

… United States signed with France in 1778, see Miller, Treaties, 3–44. An authority on international law was Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work Le Droit des gens: ou, Principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite & aux affaires …

 To Thomas Jefferson, 4 August 1793

… had with France, Great Britain, and other nations, see Miller, Treaties, 3–244. The other reference is to Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work The Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the Conduct and to …

 To Robert Cary & Company, 6 October 1773

… the Nature and Immutability of Truth; Thomas Reid, Inquiry into the Human Mind; Adam Ferguson, Institutes of Moral Philosophy; Vattel, Laws of Nations; Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli au Paces; George Turnbull, Principles of Moral Philosophy; David Fordyce, Elements …

 Enclosure Questions for the Supreme Court, 18 July 1793

… all with France, see Miller, Treaties, 3–47, 228–44. This is probably a reference to principles contained in Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work, The Law of Nations; or the Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the conduct and …

 Enclosure: Answers to Questions proposed by the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Treasury., 15 September 1790

… Law of War and Peace through Barbeyrac’s work, cited in n.3 above (see Syrett, Hamilton Papers 7:39, n.5). For Vattel’s Law of Nations, see John Jay to GW, 28 Aug. 1790, n.2. Hamilton’s footnote, “Puffendorfs Law of Nature & …

 Memorandum from Alexander Hamilton, 15 May 1793

… 26:197–99; see also JPP, 156–57, 159. Throughout the debates over U.S. neutrality policy, cabinet members referred to Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, first published in French in 1758 and in English in 1760. Although the Treaty of …

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=ADMS-search-1&mode=TOC

12th.

… with the other volumes. In the afternoon I took up Vattels’ law of nature and of nations. Emmerich de Vattel, Le droit des gens; ou, principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations …

 15th.

15th. Dined with Townsend and Thomson at Mr. Parsons’s. I finished this day the first volume of Vattel. The first book treats of the duties of a nation with respect to itself: the second of its obligations …

 22d.

22d. This forenoon I finish’d Vattel. The third book treats of War, and the fourth of Peace; much in the same manner as he treats …

 I. Reply of the House to Hutchinson’s First Message, 26 January 1773

… June 1680, Henings Statutes, 2:466–469. In his address of 6 Jan., Hutchinson had quoted this passage from Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature, applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 III. Reply of the House to Hutchinson’s Second Message, 2 March 1773

… Mass., Province Laws, 3:118. For the background of this legislation, see Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, ed. Mayo, 2:298–300. That is, Vattel. See No. I, note 12, above. These passages are taken from the second of John Locke’s Two Treatises of …

 From James Lovell, 1 January 1778

… been greatly wanted upon a most important transaction. We have had a call for your stores of Grotius Puffendorf Vattel &c. &c. &c. to support reason and commonsense or to destroy both, just as your Honour and Da– and …

 Editorial Note

… absolute. In a passage strongly reminiscent of his writs of assistance argument, Otis cited the Swiss publicist Emmerich de Vattel, as well as Bonham’s Case and other common law precedents, for the proposition that Parliament could not make a …

 To Richard Henry Lee, 15 March 1780

… I, f. 211–217; Morison, John Paul Jones, p. 355– 356). In support of his position Franklin cited Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 To the President of Congress, No. 40, 10 April 1780

… on the law of nations, but it did no more than explicitly state what was already implied (Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 Jean Henri David Uhl to John Adams: A Translation, 1 July 1782

… it was contraband, was free or not subject to seizure wherever found, even on an enemy ship (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principals of Natural Law, bk. 3, ch. 7, § 115–116). Thus when a …

 Editorial Note

… a specialized approach to the questions of prize: R. Lee, Treatise of Captures in War (London, 1759); Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (London, 1760). See Minutes, 13 Sept. 1783, DNA Microcopy 162, Case 30. No authorities appear in …

 Vattel – Thomas Jefferson

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-1&mode=TOC&#match

 To George Hammond, 29 May 1792

… choses dont le Traité ne dit rien, doivent demeurer dans l’etat où elles se trouvent lors de sa conclusion. Vattel. L. 4. §. 21. ‘De quibus nihil dictum, ea manerit quo sunt loco,’ Wolf. 1222. No alterations then are …

 Editorial Note: Jefferson’s Opinion on the Treaties with France

… But Randolph wavered when Hamilton offered to produce a citation from that formidable authority on international law, Emmerich de Vattel’s Le Droit des Gens (1758), in support of his position that a treaty might under certain circumstances be suspended …

 I. Notes on Washington’s Questions on Neutrality and the Alliance with France, [before 28 April 1793]

… free goods et econtre. free commerce to places not besieged. certificate of officer of convoy prevents searches. contraband defined. Vattel. 2. 157. the validity of treaties / 158. lezion does not annul them. / 159. duties of nations in …

 II. Notes for Opinion on the Treaty of Alliance with France, [before 28 April 1793]

… self-libern without just cause or compensn gives cause of war to France. Examine Authorities.—how far they weigh.—danger of understg. Vattel witht restrn. Grotius—Puff.—Wolf— Vattel Vattel . 2. 160.        158. <159.> 163. 219. 220. <233.> [Lengthwise in the …

 IV. Opinion on the Treaties with France, 28 April 1793

… Certainly not when merely useless or disagreeable, as seems to be said in an authority which has been quoted. Vattel. 2.197. And tho he may under certain degrees of danger, yet the danger must be imminent, and the degree …

 List of Books Sold to James Monroe, [10 May 1784]

… Oeuvres de Mably. 4.v. 1. 1. / Entretiens de Phocion 4. / Recherches sur les Americains. 3.v. 16. / Vattel 1. 16. / Epoques de la nature 2. v. 11. / Maniere de jouer aux echecs 6. / Oeuvres …

 From Edmund Randolph, with a Memorandum by Jefferson, 9 February 1781

… a Memorandum by Jefferson Sir February 9. 1781. As your excellency and the council probably have not access to Vattel, on whose doctrines this hasty answer is founded, I shall inclose the paragraph from his work, which treats of …

 Report on Negotiations with Spain, 18 March 1792

… and without having declared any: but on the contrary, conducting herself in other respects as a friend and associate. Vattel. L. 3. 122. It is an established principle that Conquest gives only an inchoate right, which does not become …

 To James Madison, 28 April 1793

… have been seriously proposed to declare our treaties with France void on the authority of an ill-understood scrap in Vattel 2.§.197. [‘toutefois si ce changement &c—gouvernement’] and that it should be necessary to discuss it?—Cases are now arising which …

 From Edmund Randolph, 9 February 1781

… made by the unarmed countrymen, I am inclined to think, that I was inaccurate. As well as I recollect, Vattel was said to be against their claim; but that daily usage was in favor of it. So far perhaps …

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-2&mode=TOC&#match

 To Thomas Newton, Jr., 8 September 1791

… 202–3). In laying down general principles only, TJ had the support of three wellknown authorities—Abraham de Wicquefort, Emmerich de Vattel, and Wyndham Beawes—among whom only Vattel argued that consuls “must be accorded, to a certain extent, the …

 II. Arguments by James Wilson and William Samuel Johnson before the Court of Commissioners, [14–23 December 1782]

… made to the Dutch possessions. We must discover the thoughts of those who make Contracts 2 Blacstone 295. 2 Vattel §270. 2 Hutchinson history Massa. 387. Interpretation must be rational 2 Rutherford—chapter Interpretation. 1 Blacstone 59. 2 Bacon abrid. …

 From Thomas Pinckney, 27 August 1793

… Court of Admiralty’s dismissal of Wilson’s suit against the Centurion’s captain was presumably based on the principle expressed by Vattel that the captain had acted in ignorance of the cessation of hostilities, even though Vattel maintained that …

 Alexander Hamilton’s Notes on Jefferson’s Letter to George Hammond, with Jefferson’s Response, [20–27 May 1792]

… have a knowledge of the transaction from it’s first embryon to it’s perfection. They are the ‘parties contractantes’ of Vattel and the ‘paciscentes’ of Wolf cited §. 48. Tho’ they do not transact the business in person, but by …

 Edmund Randolph’s Opinion on the Grange, 14 May 1793

… a country in order to settle there, it possesses every thing included in it, as lands, lakes, rivers” &c. Vattel. b.1.c.22. §.266. To this list might be added Bynkershoek and Selden. But the dissertation of the former de dominio …

 To Edmond Charles Genet, 17 June 1793

… what that law and usage is. Let us appeal to enlightened and disinterested Judges. None is more so than Vattel. He says L. 3. §. 104. “Tant qu’un peuple neutre veut jouïr surement de cet état, il doit montrer …

 To Edmond Charles Genet, [ca. 16 July 1793]

… unfortunate in your estimation. You are pleased to consider us as bringing forward diplomatic subleties, and the aphorisms of Vattel, to justify infractions of positive treaties. I shall agree with you that reason is the only rightful umpire between …

 XII. Opinion of the Chief Justice, 28 August 1790

… within two Classes vizt. cases of urgent necessity, and Cases of Convenience. The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel, who well understood the subject, says in the 7th: chapter of his 3d. Book: That an innocent Passage is …

 XV. Opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, 15 September 1790

… Peace Book II Chap II § xiii No. 1.2.3.4. Book III Chap: VII § 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. Vattel Book III Chap VII Section 127. France has made us one loan since the peace. MS (DLC: Washington Papers). …

 Notes on Washington’s Questions on Neutrality and the Alliance with France, [6 May 1793]

… valid. E.R. declared himself of the same opinion, but on H’s undertaking to present to him the authority in Vattel (which we had not present) and to prove to him that, if the authority was admitted, the treaty might …

http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-3&mode=TOC&#match

  From James Madison, 8 May 1793

… at the time have been put on them. The attempt to shuffle off the Treaty altogether by quibbling on Vattel is equally contemptible for the meanness and folly of it. If a change of Government is an absolution from …

 To William G. Munford, 27 February 1799

… in the catalogue [you sent me] as could be found here. these are Stewart’s philosophy of the human mind. Vattel’s law of nations. Smith’s wealth of nations. Nicholson’s philosophy {}to these I have added Chipman’s sketches on government Condorcet’s …

 Notes on John Jay’s Mission to Great Britain, [1797 or after]

… He says also that in conformity to what was mentioned by Mr. Jay he has used the words of Vattel. As to the article about impressment he says ‘he sees no reason whatever to object to this article.’ / …

 To James Madison, 3 August 1793

… vulnerable points, well struck, stab the party vitally.—3. lights from the law of nations on the constructions of treaties. Vattel has been most generally the guide, Bynkershoeck often quoted, Wolf sometimes. 4. no call was made by any power …

 IV. Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 16 August 1793

… law of nations, founded on the general sense and usage of mankind, we have produced proofs, from theJune 17. Vattel L.3.§.104. most enlightened and approved writers on the subject, that a neutral nation must, in all things relating to …

 To Ferdinando Fairfax, 25 April 1794

… to discuss the opinions of Home and Young, than my friend Genet did the worm-eaten aphorisms of Grotius and Vattel. In the mean time I have the honor to be with sentiments of great esteem Dear Sir your most …

 Enclosure II: Considerations on a Convention with Spain, 22 March 1792

… One writer extends the exception to atrocious criminals, too imminently dangerous to Society. Namely to Pirates, Murderers, and Incendiaries. Vattel. L. V. § 233. The punishment of Piracy, being provided for by our law, need not be so by …

 From Edmund Randolph, 30 January 1784

… be convinced of Hancock’s guilt before they could deliver him up. This scruple originated from the 76th. section of Vattel’s 2d. book. But the quotation of a practice in Switzerland which deprives the canton, within whose reach an offender …

 To John Garland Jefferson, 11 June 1790

… Spirit of laws. / Blackstone. / Virginia laws. Smith’s wealth of nations. / Beccaria. / Kaim’s moral essays. / Vattel’s law of nations / Should there be any little intervals in the day not otherwise occupied fill them up …

 From Thomas Pinckney, 5 July 1793

… was justifiable when there was a hope of reducing an enemy by famine (for a translation, see Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations …

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-search-4&mode=TOC&#match

 Course of Reading for William G. Munford, [5 December 1798]

… Practice in Chancery / Wythe’s reports. Schomberg’s hist. of [Civ. 1.] / Washington’s reports. Molloy de Jure [Mar.] / Vattel. / [Fine Arts] from [XII.] to II. Moral Philosophy [from?] […]& [night?] / Lowthe’s grammar Condorcet’s Progress of the …

 A Course of Reading for Joseph C. Cabell, September 1800

… human life. 12mo. Gregory’s legacy. 12mo. Gregory’s comparative view. 12 mo. Ld. Bacon’s essays. 12 mo. L. of nations. Vattel. Droit des gens. 4to. Droit des gens moderne par martens. 2 v. {12mo. Religion. Paley’s evidences. 8vo. Middleton’s Miscelli …

 From James Madison, 9 January 1785

… contended that such surrenders were unknown to the law of nations, and were interdicted by our declaration of Rights. Vattel however is express as to the case of Robbers, murderers and incendiaries. Grotius quotes various instances in which great …

 To John Jay, 21 June 1787

… sang répandus pour venger l’injure faite a quelqu’un de ces hommes revêtus d’un ministere national.” Grotius, Bodin, Montesquieu, and Vattel were appealed to in support of the view that the ambassador, representing his sovereign in a foreign state, must …

 To Edmond Charles Genet, [15–22 November 1793]

… are worm-eaten, or hired. It will be acknoleged that you have never troubled us with quotations from Grot. Puff. Vattel or any other authority antient or recent. Had you endeavored to learn from these respected authors what the rest …

 Vattel – George Washington

 http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=GEWN-search-1&mode=TOC&#match

From Edmund Randolph, 6 May 1793

… refusal of him may bring war upon the U.S., because they cannot, without very particular reasons decline his admission—(See Vattel book. 4. section 65) That the expulsion of the prince is not one of those particular reasons will appear …

 Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on a Cabinet Meeting, 6 May 1793

… valid. E.R. declared himself of the same opinion, but on H’s undertaking to present to him the authority in Vattel (which we had not present) & to prove to him that, if the authority was admitted, the treaty might …

 Memorandum from Henry Knox, 16 May 1793

… against our sovereignty even to such a degree as to justify a declaration of War unless satisfactory reparation be made—Vattel is explicit upon this subject he says—in Book 3. Chapter 2d Section 15. “As the right of levying soldiers …

 From John Jay, 28 August 1790

… comprized within two Classes vizt cases of urgent necessity, and cases of convenience—The present case belongs to the latter. Vattel who well understood the Subject, says in the 7th chapter of his 3d Book— That an innocent Passage is …

 To the Cabinet, 3 August 1793

… United States signed with France in 1778, see Miller, Treaties, 3–44. An authority on international law was Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work Le Droit des gens: ou, Principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite & aux affaires …

 To Thomas Jefferson, 4 August 1793

… had with France, Great Britain, and other nations, see Miller, Treaties, 3–244. The other reference is to Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work The Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the Conduct and to …

 To Robert Cary & Company, 6 October 1773

… the Nature and Immutability of Truth; Thomas Reid, Inquiry into the Human Mind; Adam Ferguson, Institutes of Moral Philosophy; Vattel, Laws of Nations; Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli au Paces; George Turnbull, Principles of Moral Philosophy; David Fordyce, Elements …

 Enclosure Questions for the Supreme Court, 18 July 1793

… all with France, see Miller, Treaties, 3–47, 228–44. This is probably a reference to principles contained in Emmerich de Vattel’s three-volume work, The Law of Nations; or the Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the conduct and …

 Enclosure: Answers to Questions proposed by the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Treasury., 15 September 1790

… Law of War and Peace through Barbeyrac’s work, cited in n.3 above (see Syrett, Hamilton Papers 7:39, n.5). For Vattel’s Law of Nations, see John Jay to GW, 28 Aug. 1790, n.2. Hamilton’s footnote, “Puffendorfs Law of Nature & …

 Memorandum from Alexander Hamilton, 15 May 1793

… 26:197–99; see also JPP, 156–57, 159. Throughout the debates over U.S. neutrality policy, cabinet members referred to Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, first published in French in 1758 and in English in 1760. Although the Treaty of …

Vattel – Ratification

http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=RNCN-search-1&mode=TOC

 Convention Debates

… a confederation of states. (8) Sovereignty is in the states and not in the people in its exercise. (9) Vattel’s description of sovereignty—it belonged originally to the body of the society (Vat. page 9. of the Sovereign). (10) …

 Convention Debates, A.M.

… marginal notes] Sovereignty Vat. p. 5. s. 2 Lock, p. 2, s. 149, 227. Bl. 245. 161. 162. Confederacy, Vattel p. 11. s. 10 Mont. b. 9. c. 1. A general inconsistency between this reasoning and that against the …

 Convention Debates, A.M.

… 2. [Montesquieu, I, 11–18.] “The People, in whom the Supreme Power resides.” (51) Vat. b. 1. s. 1. 2. [Vattel, 15–16.] “Sovereignty.” (52) The sovereignty is essentially in the people; but is vested in a senate or a monarch. …

 Convention Debates, A.M.

… closed his arguments in opposition to the proposed federal system. [Dallas’ Debates, Pennsylvania Herald, 15 December] Findley: Sovereignty. Vat. [Vattel] p. 9. 19. Locke, on Gov. [II] c. 13 [chapter XIII]. There is but one supreme power, viz., the …

 Symbols

… Ithaca, N.Y., 1930–1971). Thorpe Francis N. Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions … (7 vols., Washington, D.C., 1909). Vattel Emerich de Vattel , The Law of Nations … (Dublin, 1792). Cross-references CC Commentaries on the Constitution: Public …

 George Clinton’s Remarks Against Ratifying the Constitution, 11 July 1788

… persons, having a will of their own and equal rights—that these rights are freedom, sovereignty, and independence. The celebrated Vattel treating on this subject, observes “that power or weakness does not in this respect produce any difference. A dwarf …

A Blog Response

Recently on another blog: The Right Side of Life posted the following;   Rep. Deal Wants Obama’s Birth Certificate; Let the Blowback Begin!

Apparently Rep. Deal knew he was going to stir up quite the proverbial hornet’s nest by seriously suggesting that he was going to ask the President to see his birth certificate. So, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (h/t PeachPundit), the castigations are now beginning.

As you read through what I post from the article, below, I’m going to interject my own commentary into what the included public figures say, because I think most of them are seriously full of it; the idea that somehow someone is considered to be, essentially, other than rational for daring to question the President is, itself, asinine:

“I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available and it leaves many things to be desired,” Deal said in an interview Friday.

Deal’s statement came a day after he noted in an online chat that he would join other U.S. House members in writing the president and asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate.

a poster that goes by siseduermapierdra posted again the flawed Wong Kim Ark decision in his rantinmgs. I posted the follwing reply. Posted here for you all to read.

I hate to break the news to you, but I have been saying the following LONG before Leo.

Quote; Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown.

The 14th Amendment and Title 8 state that NOT only being born in country, but that you have to have the Jurisdiction.

You attempt to solve a math problem with only half the equation, it does not work.

Citizenship + Jurisdiction + Allegiance = Natural Born Citizen

Even SR511 that allowed McCain, was flawed as it clearly stated the requirements for NBC status.

 Senate Resolutions is a resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
What Constitution are they refering to that protects the NBC requirement.

“””Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it…”””

Note BORN TO TWO (2) US CITIZEN Parents, but OUTSIDE the Country.
Which we know McCain was NOT born in a US Military hospital on base, as there WAS no hospital on base.

Please state who are Barack Obama TWO (2) US Citizen parents?

Now, lets take a look at John Bingham, ‘author’ of the 14th Amendment of which you attempt to use a flawed decision of KWA.

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

Note: that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown.

I believe Obama fails, based on John Bingham

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z

Now Justice Waite;
it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Again born in country to parents who are citizens

Please state the US Parent(s) of Barack Obama, both of them.
Oh, that’s right his father was a foreign national, or ‘as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.’

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy
-Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

Again, please provide the names of both the United States citizen Parent(s) of Barack Obama.

that’s right, his father was a foreign national. He was from a foreign country.

Since you like to use KWA, here is another
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
-Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1

Where is this other resort that the Supreme Court and other cases used to determine.

E. Vattel, the Law of Nations.

 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

It’s hard for Obama supporters to face facts.

Senate Resolution 511 and what it really means

Most people looking into the eligibility issue concerning Barack Obama aka Barrack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barry Obama, [sounds more like a wanted posted with all these alias’s], have seen SR511. Senate Resolution 511 is in terms the defining moment when the Senate gave its approval for one of their own, to circumvent the laws of this nation.

Let’s look at  SR511 and it’s interpretation of the Presidential eligibility

 Here is the Resolution text.

 Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

 Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.

 Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

 The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

 So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

 It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

 Whom are they referring to, that was born ‘outside’ the United States and who deemed them eligible?

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a ‘naturalized’ citizenship?

So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.

More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on  being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.

Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States. 

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?

Constitutional Points to Ponder

As the US Constitution states as requirement for the Presidency.

Eligibility

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

  • be a natural born citizen of the United States;
  • be at least thirty-five years old;
  • have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Foreign-born Americans who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted were also eligible to become President, provided they met the age and residency requirements. However, this allowance has since become obsolete.

No we know the definition and intent of a “Natural Born Citizen” as per the Framers and Founding Fathers.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

As I have stated before and will state here again.  Barack Obama, he has admitted being a British citizen at birth. From his own web-site,  “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Now ponder these Constitutional points as we review the above information.

“An Unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
– Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442

“It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution it is presumptively unconstitutional.”
– Harris V. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980) (USSC+)

“Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.”
-Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury V. Madison,1Cr.137

“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
— John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802

“Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
— Alexander Hamilton

We do NOT need the birth certificate or certification of live birth, Obama is NOT eligible as per the US Constitution, and as such he IS nothing but a Usurper.  Nothing that has done, doing, or will do, will attempt is legal and binding, as per the United States Constitution.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers